Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Change the name to the logo itself, which is of course an unpronounceable symbol 🙂
That should have happened sooner. Anything to prevent William Shatner's rendition of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Beatles Sue Apple Computer?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Change the name to the logo itself, which is of course an unpronounceable symbol 🙂
That should have happened sooner. Anything to prevent William Shatner's rendition of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"...
Oh, I read the post...
You said "Beatles do not like new technology."
I think this is a little bit of a generalization!
There are reasons that Apple withheld the Beatles from CD until 1987. For one, it was done so that the release of Sgt Pepper on CD on June 1, 1987 would mark 20 years since its original release..."it was 20 years ago today..."
In addition, a lot of the albums were remastered for CD, and not simply released as they originally sounded.
Finally, it kept the public waiting, to build a little bit of anticipation. The Beatles were, and are, the monsters. Apple wouldnt have just let the Beatles out without a little fanfare!
Apple Corps was founded by John, Paul, George and Ringo and are now owned by Yoko, Paul, George's estate and Ringo - so no matter how you look at it, it's the beatles suing. And the whole thing is crazy.
The few beatles recordings that were released by Apple Corps no longer are even published by Apple Corps, but rather by Capitol/EMI Records.
According to this
http://www.idler.co.uk/html/library/apple.htm
Apple Corp shut down in 1970.
"On August 4 1970 Apple Corps was closed down and on 31 December McCartney instituted court action to dissolve The Beatles partnership."
Re: questions
Read my post above for details on the MJ thing. Paul McCartney (I believe) has a financial interest in Apple, but no, he is not the owner.
Read my post above for details on the MJ thing. Paul McCartney (I believe) has a financial interest in Apple, but no, he is not the owner.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
Kill all the lawyers....
Who the heck is Apple Corps anyways?!?! I've never even heard of these pissants.
I'm seriously getting sick of all these lawsuits. It doesn't matter where its coming from its reaching a critical mass where a judge needs to have the ability to execute the lawyer that loses a lawsuits. On the spot. Make em think twice before heading into court with this kind of BS nonsense.
Obviously not going to happen but I can wish cant I. 😉
Who the heck is Apple Corps anyways?!?! I've never even heard of these pissants.
I'm seriously getting sick of all these lawsuits. It doesn't matter where its coming from its reaching a critical mass where a judge needs to have the ability to execute the lawyer that loses a lawsuits. On the spot. Make em think twice before heading into court with this kind of BS nonsense.
Obviously not going to happen but I can wish cant I. 😉
actually, here's a better history of Apple Corps.
http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecofacts.htm
This page says "The Apple label lasted until 1976"
And also says "Apple was set up purely and simple as a tax saving project"
http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecofacts.htm
This page says "The Apple label lasted until 1976"
And also says "Apple was set up purely and simple as a tax saving project"
Re: Re: A Few Things
1) Please cite cases. I don't buy that the courts look favorably upon confusing trademarks.
2) The case is about breach of contract. It's already been established hasn't it that Apple Computers was infringing on Apple Records? If it was decided they weren't, why is there a contract stating they won't compete? A contract exists and Apple Records alleges that Apple Computers is in breach of that contract. The court could go back and find that the contract is not valid of course, but I'd be suprised if it hadn't already been tested by Apple Computers at the appeallate level.
I wonder though what the consideration was for Apple Computer's promise? For Apple records to forebear the right to sue Apple Computers?
*shrug*
-p
1) Please cite cases. I don't buy that the courts look favorably upon confusing trademarks.
2) The case is about breach of contract. It's already been established hasn't it that Apple Computers was infringing on Apple Records? If it was decided they weren't, why is there a contract stating they won't compete? A contract exists and Apple Records alleges that Apple Computers is in breach of that contract. The court could go back and find that the contract is not valid of course, but I'd be suprised if it hadn't already been tested by Apple Computers at the appeallate level.
I wonder though what the consideration was for Apple Computer's promise? For Apple records to forebear the right to sue Apple Computers?
*shrug*
-p
prechrchet
macrumors regular
How about this
A couple of people have mentioned changing Apple's name in jest, but seriously, what would be wrong with renaming the company "Macintosh"? They are already synonymous with that name, and would require almost no remarketing to get people to understand the change.
Then they can make whatever music they want to, and Apple Records can't do a thing about it.
Just a thought
A couple of people have mentioned changing Apple's name in jest, but seriously, what would be wrong with renaming the company "Macintosh"? They are already synonymous with that name, and would require almost no remarketing to get people to understand the change.
Then they can make whatever music they want to, and Apple Records can't do a thing about it.
Just a thought
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
About Apple Corps, Ltd.
http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecomain.htm
In February '68 The Beatles, Ltd. changed its name to Apple Corps, Ltd.
Apple Corps, Ltd:
* Apple Electronics,
* Apple Films Ltd.,
* Apple Management,
* Apple Music Publishing,
* Apple Overseas,
* Apple Publicity,
* Apple Records,
* Apple Retail,
* Apple Tailoring Civil and Theatrical,
* Apple Television (planned),
* Apple Wholesale (planned).
http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecomain.htm
In February '68 The Beatles, Ltd. changed its name to Apple Corps, Ltd.
Apple Corps, Ltd:
* Apple Electronics,
* Apple Films Ltd.,
* Apple Management,
* Apple Music Publishing,
* Apple Overseas,
* Apple Publicity,
* Apple Records,
* Apple Retail,
* Apple Tailoring Civil and Theatrical,
* Apple Television (planned),
* Apple Wholesale (planned).
I know.
I'm just messing with sickracer2015 about the fact that...THE BEATLES ARE SUING APPLE COMPUTER.
😀
digitalbiker
macrumors 65816
What goes around comes around!
It seems to me that Apple Computer has instigated it's own fair share of legal strong arm tactics to protect it's own trademark products and technology. How many little guys have we read about that were just trying to improve on the technology and were slammed by Apple legal? How many rumour sites are served papers to withdrawl comments or photos? How many look-alike GUI interfaces has Apple sued and received concessions for.
Apple Corp was first. Apple computer made an agreement. Apple computer broke the agreement. Apple computer gets sued.
Hey, you have to follow the same set of rules that you expect others to follow. I have no problem with the law suit. Apple should have known better than to sign such a stupid agreement in the first place.
It seems to me that Apple Computer has instigated it's own fair share of legal strong arm tactics to protect it's own trademark products and technology. How many little guys have we read about that were just trying to improve on the technology and were slammed by Apple legal? How many rumour sites are served papers to withdrawl comments or photos? How many look-alike GUI interfaces has Apple sued and received concessions for.
Apple Corp was first. Apple computer made an agreement. Apple computer broke the agreement. Apple computer gets sued.
Hey, you have to follow the same set of rules that you expect others to follow. I have no problem with the law suit. Apple should have known better than to sign such a stupid agreement in the first place.
Stella
macrumors G3
thanks for the clarification of reasons for Beatles... Quite a few artists, had their music remastered, one of my favourite being Mike Oldfield (Tubular Bells etc), had all his music remastered and put on CD.
But this (quote below) reminds of of Star Wars...
Not that its a bad thing.. thoug gave Lucas $$$$$$$$ in returns!!
OT: once revenue of EP 1- 3 has dried up, 7 to 9 are sure to follow, what ever he says now!!
But this (quote below) reminds of of Star Wars...
Not that its a bad thing.. thoug gave Lucas $$$$$$$$ in returns!!
OT: once revenue of EP 1- 3 has dried up, 7 to 9 are sure to follow, what ever he says now!!
Balin64
macrumors 6502a
This Saddens Me
You know what guys?
Nothing makes me happier than listening to my favorite band, The Beatles, on my sexy Apple Computers: iMac 17", 12" AlBook and also my iPod.
Literature, The Beatles and Macs are some of the things in my life I treasure dearly.
This is just a damn shame. The arguments from the first lawsuit no longer stand; Apple Corps is a dinosaur; they shold be lobbying whoever owns Beatles music (mostly freakin' Jacko, except Gerorge Harrison's) to get on iTMS. With a Wintel release around the corner, it should be their main interest to ensure the surviving Beatles' estates grow as a result of royalties from digital downloads rather than from hitting up Apple Computer for money again.
Apple has been heavy into music for a lomg tiime: remember "rip, mix burn"? Heck Yes! I ripped my entire Beatles collection as soon as iTunes came out and have treated my friends to wonderful Beatles music whenever I have parties. Most of them have more than four Beatles CD's now: and not because I burned CD's for them, they bought them (and four of them have switched form PC to Macs just because of their love for music).
Why did they not sue before? I think that with iTMS about to make a huge change in the way people buy music by porting it to the rest of the herded world, Apple Corps wants one more paycheck from Apple. Trust me: this is archaic ideas vs. progress. I hope the judge sends the Brit lawyers back to London to meander about a dawn-hued Covent Garden with a wicked Carlsberg-induced hangover after a very much deserved defeat.
I actually care not wether Paul or Ringo are supporting this or not. I like the Paul and Ringo, as well as John and George (may they be jammin' in heaven) coming from the Pro Speakers coming from my bloody brilliant iMac.
Just my Two Pence.
You know what guys?
Nothing makes me happier than listening to my favorite band, The Beatles, on my sexy Apple Computers: iMac 17", 12" AlBook and also my iPod.
Literature, The Beatles and Macs are some of the things in my life I treasure dearly.
This is just a damn shame. The arguments from the first lawsuit no longer stand; Apple Corps is a dinosaur; they shold be lobbying whoever owns Beatles music (mostly freakin' Jacko, except Gerorge Harrison's) to get on iTMS. With a Wintel release around the corner, it should be their main interest to ensure the surviving Beatles' estates grow as a result of royalties from digital downloads rather than from hitting up Apple Computer for money again.
Apple has been heavy into music for a lomg tiime: remember "rip, mix burn"? Heck Yes! I ripped my entire Beatles collection as soon as iTunes came out and have treated my friends to wonderful Beatles music whenever I have parties. Most of them have more than four Beatles CD's now: and not because I burned CD's for them, they bought them (and four of them have switched form PC to Macs just because of their love for music).
Why did they not sue before? I think that with iTMS about to make a huge change in the way people buy music by porting it to the rest of the herded world, Apple Corps wants one more paycheck from Apple. Trust me: this is archaic ideas vs. progress. I hope the judge sends the Brit lawyers back to London to meander about a dawn-hued Covent Garden with a wicked Carlsberg-induced hangover after a very much deserved defeat.
I actually care not wether Paul or Ringo are supporting this or not. I like the Paul and Ringo, as well as John and George (may they be jammin' in heaven) coming from the Pro Speakers coming from my bloody brilliant iMac.
Just my Two Pence.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Re: who the hell is apple records?
I'm younger than you and I know exactly what they're talking about... if you're at all a beatles fan you'd know about apple records, even if it was just noticing most of their records have an apple logo on them...
(in fact the logo on the middle of a lot of their vinyl records is a green apple)
anyways i guess its not that big of a deal in the end, but it really was a big deal since they, along with people like jimi hendrix, were some of the first artists to really take creative control of theur own music and move past something other thna just being a musician, paving the way for more enterprising people...
as for the lawsuit, i think it blows...
I'm younger than you and I know exactly what they're talking about... if you're at all a beatles fan you'd know about apple records, even if it was just noticing most of their records have an apple logo on them...
(in fact the logo on the middle of a lot of their vinyl records is a green apple)
anyways i guess its not that big of a deal in the end, but it really was a big deal since they, along with people like jimi hendrix, were some of the first artists to really take creative control of theur own music and move past something other thna just being a musician, paving the way for more enterprising people...
as for the lawsuit, i think it blows...